Thread: Gallup: Unemployment drops down to 8.1%, lowest level yet.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I'll repeat my previos post, since you obviously did not read it:

Equally critical is the psychological effect. A serious recession creates a "death spiral" where layoffs result in fear, fear resultsd in less spending, less spending results in production contraction, which results in more layoffs, which result in more fear and panic. Add to that a stock market and real estate market crash, and you have a recipe where the economy destroys itself in this cycle of fear and destruction.



Death of a salesman? What else? Jeez.



The fallacy is you position is that you confuse the difference between absolute proof meaning there can be no evidence or proof. The fact that you cannot mathematically and absolutely prove something in a complex multivariable environment like economic does not mean that you cannot make rational arguments and deductions based on solid evidence.

So yes, I agree that it is impossible to absolutely prove that Govt intervention had an effect.

However, that does not mean there isn't lots of evidence and solid argument that it did, as I have presented.

And when faced with an argument based upon solid evidence and logic, versus one based on nothing, it is logical to conclude that the argument based on solid evidence and logic is more probable.

The fallacies in your position, from just a quick read, is a) your assertion that saving jobs is automatically good for the economy, and b) that it's a rational argument to declare that the problem is people acting irrationally out of an unmeasurable component of "fear". Business owners react rationally to uncertainty by taking the steps necessary to eliminate undue risk. Your "death spiral" nonsense is just voodoo economics intended to get more government intervention and is otherwise meaningless.

Originally Posted by DA60

I do not wish to seem rude, but I have discussed this subject over and over and over since I started posting here.

And I do not wish to get into it yet again...especially when it is not the specific topic of the thread.


besides, I am not big on discussing theories.

I AM big on posting/reading unbiased facts.

And my basic point here is:

[I]Saddling Americans with over $7.5 trillion in extra debt over 4 years with the result being:

- the work force is smaller
- average home prices are lower
- and more people are starving (on their own) then ever before?

Do I consider that successful?

This is an interesting post DA60 that deserves some attention. Further you may be mistaken but your view and comments are reasonable and well put.

The trouble with your comments is the premise that there is a direct relation between the extra debt and the lack of work, low prices for homes and increased starvation.

For example, the extra debt may well have been a vital factor in preventing the things you mention getting much worse such as by ensuring that states could continue to run basic services and individuals could receive tax holidays to help their consuming in tougher times.

By that we would have to conclude that it was indeed successful. Moreover since you obviously like tax cuts you surely would approve of the basic unbiased fact of the stimulus tax cuts would you not?

Now if you have links to facts that prove anything I typed above is wrong (or right), I would be most interested in seeing them (as I am always looking to learn more about economics).

Indeed, I think ill just stick with the basic unbaised fact that Mr Obama is a tax cutter not a tax raiser.

But if a philosophical debate is what you wish, there are others on here that seemingly are far more interested in that angle (I only pursued the above with Iriemon due to our 'history'...one which I am seriously tiring of).

My apologies if my comments seemed 'philosophical', I assumed they were simple historical analysis.

For the record, I think both parties suck and every President since at least Nixon were gigantic overall failures because (among MANY other reasons) none of them could balance the budgets during their term. And the one that sort-of could - Clinton - was a colossal coward for letting 800,000 Rwandans hack each other to death while he sat back and watched).

Hmm by that I would guess your favourite president was Eisenhower. Then of course Clinton, you really shouldnt get so hyped about rwandans, every president in office has presided over massacres going on somewhere in the world - and we euros didnt do much either, it was all a bit too fast.

Originally Posted by BleedingHeadKen

The fallacies in your position, from just a quick read, is a) your assertion that saving jobs is automatically good for the economy, and b) that it's a rational argument to declare that the problem is people acting irrationally out of an unmeasurable component of "fear". Business owners react rationally to uncertainty by taking the steps necessary to eliminate undue risk. Your "death spiral" nonsense is just voodoo economics intended to get more government intervention and is otherwise meaningless.

a/ Whats wrong with saving jobs?

b/ Indeed business owners act rationally to poor environments by not investing. However, the psychology os crowds is not necessarily rational. Much as a stampede is irrational.

c/ The death spiral refers to the mass panic of a crash, this has happened numerous times every business cycle to varying degrees. It is not voodoo economics.

d/ Voodoo economics refers to supply side nonsense most right wingers today aspire to and was so named by none other than G H W Bush.

Originally Posted by creation

Hmm by that I would guess your favourite president was Eisenhower. Then of course Clinton, you really shouldnt get so hyped about rwandans, every president in office has presided over massacres going on somewhere in the world - and we euros didnt do much either, it was all a bit too fast.

I have no favorite POTUS - they were all (that I mentioned) wastes of time while in office.

And BS that Rwanda happened 'a bit too fast'.

'Bill Clinton and his administration allowed the genocide of 500,000 to 800,000 people in Rwanda in 1994. In a clear effort to avoid responsibility and embarrassment, the Clinton administration has refused to acknowledge its role in failing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. This allegation comes from the recent report released in July by a panel affiliated with the Organization for African Unity (OAU).'

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-s...ide-in-rwanda/




'UNITED NATIONS (AP) - In a scathing indictment of the failure to halt the worst genocide since World War II, an international panel on Friday blamed the U.N. Security Council, the United States, France and the Catholic Church for failing to prevent the slaughter of more than 500,000 Rwandans.

The seven-member panel created by the Organization of African Unity called for the international community - especially those countries that failed to prevent or help stop the 1994 genocide - to pay reparations to Rwanda "in the name of both justice and accountability."

The 90-day genocide, orchestrated by a small group of Hutu extremists against the Tutsi minority, followed a mysterious plane crash that killed Rwanda's President Juvenal Habyari-mana. More than half a million Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus were killed in the slaughter, which ended when Tutsi-led rebels defeated the Hutu extremists in July 1994.

The OAU report is harsh in assessing blame, repudiating France's contention that it bears no responsibility for the genocide and President Clinton's insistence that the United States failed to act because of ignorance.

"A small number of major actors could directly have prevented, halted, or reduced the slaughter. They include France in Rwanda itself; the U.S. at the Security Council; Belgium, whose soldiers knew they could save countless lives if they were allowed to remain in the country; and Rwanda's church leaders," the report said.

At a news conference launching the 318-page report, former Canadian ambassador and panel member Stephen Lewis said the United States knew exactly what was going on - but blocked the Security Council from deploying an effective U.N. force because it had lost 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia five months earlier and didn't want to become embroiled in Africa again.

"It's simply beyond belief that because of Somalia hundreds of thousands of Rwandans needlessly lost their lives," he said. "I don't know how Madeleine Albright lives with it." At the time, the U.S. secretary of state was America's ambassador to the United Nations.'

http://amarillo.com/stories/070800/usn_LA0684.shtml



Clinton is a scumbag for what he let happen.

Not maybe, not possibly, not probably...100% for certain.

PERIOD.

Now back to the topic...

Originally Posted by creation

This is an interesting post DA60 that deserves some attention. Further you may be mistaken but your view and comments are reasonable and well put.

The trouble with your comments is the premise that there is a direct relation between the extra debt and the lack of work, low prices for homes and increased starvation.

For example, the extra debt may well have been a vital factor in preventing the things you mention getting much worse such as by ensuring that states could continue to run basic services and individuals could receive tax holidays to help their consuming in tougher times.

By that we would have to conclude that it was indeed successful. Moreover since you obviously like tax cuts you surely would approve of the basic unbiased fact of the stimulus tax cuts would you not?

We can guess until the cows come home what the economy would look like without the trillions spent.


All I know (on this) is that over the last roughly 4 years, $7.5 trillion in debt burden were added to Americans. And most of that debt was designed to directly assist the economy.

And what is the economy like today compared to roughly 4 years ago?

- the work force has shrank (despite the population growing by over 10 million people)
- the average house is worth substantially less
- and FAR more Americans are starving (on their own) then ever before

That sounds like a failure to me.


And I think if you had asked most Americans 4 years ago:

'Hey, we want to give each of you $25,000 more federal debt. And in return for that money, we can guarantee you that in 4 years time that less people will be in the work force, your houses will be worth much less and way more of you will be on food stamps then ever before?

Does that sound like money well spent to you?'

I am guessing most would say 'no'.

I don't think people really care about whatever figures the government toss out. What their family is employed and how much a trip to the grocery store sets them back. They compare that to 3 - 4 years back and see if they are better off now than they were when Obama took office.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Several threads have been started by our conservative friends in the past citing Gallup for the unemployment number, arguing that while Govt unemployment numbers are manipulated or fixed, Gallup is reliable.

They will be interested to know that Gallup today posted the unemployment rate at 8.1%, lower than the Govt number of 8.2%, and the lowest it has been since Gallup started running an unemployment poll in early 2010.

Unlike the commonly referred to unemployment rate produced by the Govt, the Gallup poll is not seasonally adjusted.

A sign that the economy is continue to show the surprising resilience it has demonstrated over the past several months?

And bad news for the Republicans, which is why I am sure we will see several of them attacking this information.

and the percentage of employed citizens continues to drop.
Interesting how unemployment improves.

Originally Posted by creation

a/ Whats wrong with saving jobs?

What's right with saving jobs?

b/ Indeed business owners act rationally to poor environments by not investing. However, the psychology os crowds is not necessarily rational. Much as a stampede is irrational.

Are business owners joining crowds and getting lost in a mob mentality? I think it's a really an incredible stretch to apply crowd psychology to people who are in dispersed locations, doing different things and getting their information from a variety of sources.

c/ The death spiral refers to the mass panic of a crash, this has happened numerous times every business cycle to varying degrees. It is not voodoo economics.

I don't think that he was referring to a simple crash, but the results, over time, of people rationally choosing to curtail higher risk investments. Panics don't last that long.

d/ Voodoo economics refers to supply side nonsense most right wingers today aspire to and was so named by none other than G H W Bush.

I didn't realize that the term now applies solely to supply-side economics (or, more specifically, tax cuts in response to data derived from the Laffer curve.) I think it's very apt when applied to dark and mysterious forces like "fear", and "panic", and "animal spirits."

Here is what I know....
Been Unemployed for 62 weeks.
Unemployment ended after 55 weeks.
So, as far as Obama cares, his stats show I got a job 7 weeks ago.

Job search data:
- Had 236 interviews
- Been on 17 Final/Hire Interviews
- Primary reason for not hired as given by company - person with better "fit"
- Real reasons for not hired includes: Age (56), White, Overqualified, not Spanish speaking, "Don't need the job as much", all experience in one field(pharma).

Even Walmart stopped the one job I am starting to think I could get as "Greeter"... ugh.

So, as in all politics are local.... All job statistics are local too!

This thread title is a failure. Lowest yet? 8.1% is anything but the lowest yet.